In my league we have had more than enough trades vetoed and their explanation was that the trade was "unfair" correct me if im wrong here, but isnt the veto for eliminating the possiblity of having two or more teams teaming up by sending all of one teams good players for anothers bad players, and then they would split their money. Well I just want to know if I'm right or wrong here.

Lugo Watch: SB - 24 HR - 2

Rehab is for quitters.

(The Official Corey Patterson Screwed Me Over Club)
http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1087805#1087805

Jagfan21 wrote:In my league we have had more than enough trades vetoed and their explanation was that the trade was "unfair" correct me if im wrong here, but isnt the veto for eliminating the possiblity of having two or more teams teaming up by sending all of one teams good players for anothers bad players, and then they would split their money. Well I just want to know if I'm right or wrong here.

That's how I (and everybody in my league) have always viewed the Veto. That said, in 6 1/2 seaons, we've never vetoed a single trade. We've ribbed guys for getting the worse end of a deal, but that's just the way it goes. An owner is responsible for his team. If he botches a trade for one reason or another, he has every right to. I think the veto and any other method of negating a trade should be reserved exclusively for when it is blatant that some sort of collusion between two or more teams is involved.

Depends on your league rules. Some use a caveat emptor approach which lets anything go as long as collusion is not involved. Others use a more "Generally equitable" approach...and others use a vote methodology among owners, which means you could get anything to completely trade hostile.

I personally enforce a "Generally equitable" rule in the leagues I Commish. I am not going to allow a Baez and Coco Crisp for Pujols deal no matter what BS justification the parties involved give me. A little common sense needs to be applied like anywhere else.

I find that the Veto plays a bigger role in free leagues where people have nothing at stake. I don't think I have ever seen a veto in one of my money leagues. The reasoning is that people who spend the money to be in a competitive league know enough not to make a dumb trade.

In a free league I would veto a trade that is completely absurd, but if it just a matter of opinion or personal preference then let it slide.

I too believe that most trades shouldn't be vetoed. Only when you think cheating is involved, or when it is terribly one sided, like A Rod for Milton and D Graves, or something like that. No one knows what is going to happen in the future, so what may look like a bad trade in May, might be a good trade in June, and this is why a trade shouldn't be vetoed if the some owners think it is a bad trade.

I think "generally equitable" was a nice way of stating it. I don't care or think it is anyone's place to weigh in, if say a trade is within 25-30 percent of each other. I think that each trade has a few factors:

roster distribution across the league
impartial valuation (mags, the cafe etc)
negotiating ability on the part of the trading teams
statistical need
excess talent within an individual team

I reserve the right to overpay, should I so desire and have a compelling reason, or a surplus of unexpected and valuable talent at a position. If you have a great middle infielder who ain't gonna get off your bench because you have soriano and jeter -- then even if it is generally unfair (or would be in most leagues) sometimes you can overpay with surplus.

But I think it is overused. I don't think it is at all fair when non-involved teams use it not to enforce some general equity, but to speficially protect a lead. That, I find reprehensible.

I think there is a place for a veto, but I think a majority of the league should feel that way, not this 30 percent crap yahoo does (or whatever)

It has its place in extreme cases, but not in a lopsided, but semidefensible trade.

TheYanks04 wrote:Depends on your league rules. Some use a caveat emptor approach which lets anything go as long as collusion is not involved. Others use a more "Generally equitable" approach...and others use a vote methodology among owners, which means you could get anything to completely trade hostile.

I personally enforce a "Generally equitable" rule in the leagues I Commish. I am not going to allow a Baez and Coco Crisp for Pujols deal no matter what BS justification the parties involved give me. A little common sense needs to be applied like anywhere else.

Just curious - and let's presume Crisp is healthy:

So, Team A is in 2nd, 3 points behind the leader. Needs saves and SB and would gain AT LEAST 6 points (due to bunching in those categories) with Baez and Crisp, and has such a huge lead in HR and RBI that he could remove Pujols' stats and still be leading (as he has C. Lee, D. Lee and A. Jones, among others).

Team B is in 10th and, with Pujols, has a chance to catch the 1st place team in HR.

TheYanks04 wrote:Depends on your league rules. Some use a caveat emptor approach which lets anything go as long as collusion is not involved. Others use a more "Generally equitable" approach...and others use a vote methodology among owners, which means you could get anything to completely trade hostile.

I personally enforce a "Generally equitable" rule in the leagues I Commish. I am not going to allow a Baez and Coco Crisp for Pujols deal no matter what BS justification the parties involved give me. A little common sense needs to be applied like anywhere else.

Just curious - and let's presume Crisp is healthy:

So, Team A is in 2nd, 3 points behind the leader. Needs saves and SB and would gain AT LEAST 6 points (due to bunching in those categories) with Baez and Crisp, and has such a huge lead in HR and RBI that he could remove Pujols' stats and still be leading (as he has C. Lee, D. Lee and A. Jones, among others).

Team B is in 10th and, with Pujols, has a chance to catch the 1st place team in HR.

You would still veto the trade?

Well stated Dawgpound and that's precisely why "trade equitability" should never be the benchmark in roto leagues. Trades don't happen in a vacuum roster/scoring needs trump equity in roto. For these very reasons I've only personally seen the need to request veto on one trade in the several seasons I've played. It was a late season deal in which due to games limits being reached one owner had absolutely no slot to ever play any of the assests he was due to receive. Were that league a keeper league, I probably wouldn't have requested a veto there either.

Our league used to have a committtee of 5 owners. As it turns out this was a bad way to go because they were usally the most active 5 owners in the league always near the top in the standings. So they were vetoing trades all the time because their fear having someone behind them get better was a concern